EASTERN ORTHODOXY BESIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT
HOW MUCH IS APOSTOLIC — AND HOW MUCH DEVELOPED LATER?
On our last page, we tried to let Eastern Orthodoxy speak for itself.
That matters. It would be unfair to criticize Orthodox Christians for something they do not actually believe.
Now we take the next step.
We put Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice beside the New Testament.
Not beside Protestantism.
Not beside Roman Catholicism.
Not beside Churches of Christ.
BESIDE THE TEXT.
Some Orthodox practices have clear connections with what we read in the New Testament.
Others raise questions about how later Christians understood and developed apostolic teaching.
We should acknowledge both.
And we should apply the same questions to ourselves.
1. CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH
Start with something important on which Christians can agree.
Paul wrote:
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”
— Ephesians 5:23, KJV
And:
“And he is the head of the body, the church.”
— Colossians 1:18, KJV
Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach that the Ecumenical Patriarch replaces Christ as Head of the church.
The Ecumenical Patriarch holds a special position among Orthodox bishops, but he is not understood to possess the same universal governing authority claimed by the pope.
Orthodox Christians confess Christ as the Head of His church.
That is where our comparison begins.
But confessing Christ as Head does not, by itself, settle how He intended His church to be organized.
For that, we need to examine the apostolic writings.
2. WHAT ABOUT BISHOPS?
Eastern Orthodoxy has bishops.
The New Testament has bishops.
Does that settle the question?
No.
We need to ask what the word meant when the apostles used it.
Paul summoned the:
“elders of the church.”
— Acts 20:17, KJV
Then he told these same men:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”
— Acts 20:28, KJV
The Greek word translated overseer is the word from which the English word bishop developed.
Notice what happened.
Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus.
He then described those same men as overseers.
Now compare Titus.
Paul told Titus:
“Ordain elders in every city.”
— Titus 1:5, KJV
Then, while describing the qualifications of those men, he said:
“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.”
— Titus 1:7, KJV
In these passages, elder and overseer describe the same local leadership.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT PRESENT ELDER AND BISHOP AS TWO DIFFERENT RANKS IN ACTS 20 OR TITUS 1.
That distinction becomes important when we examine the later structure of Eastern Orthodoxy.
3. WHAT ABOUT SHEPHERDS OR PASTORS?
Acts 20 gives us another description.
Paul told the elders, whom he had just called overseers:
“To feed the church of God.”
— Acts 20:28, KJV
The word translated feed carries the idea of shepherding.
Peter used similar language:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.”
— 1 Peter 5:1, KJV
Then he instructed them:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.”
— 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
So we encounter three descriptions:
ELDER.
OVERSEER OR BISHOP.
SHEPHERD OR PASTOR.
In these passages, the descriptions belong to the same group of local church leaders.
Later church history developed a distinction between a bishop and the presbyters serving under him.
We examined that development in Section 1.
Now we must ask how the later Orthodox structure relates to the organization described in these passages.
4. ORTHODOX BISHOPS AND NEW TESTAMENT OVERSEERS
An Eastern Orthodox bishop ordinarily oversees a diocese containing numerous congregations.
Priests normally serve individual parishes under the bishop.
But in the New Testament, we repeatedly find elders or overseers associated with local churches.
Paul and Barnabas:
“Ordained them elders in every church.”
— Acts 14:23, KJV
Paul addressed the Christians at Philippi:
“With the bishops and deacons.”
— Philippians 1:1, KJV
Notice the distinction.
The New Testament describes elders or overseers serving churches.
The later Orthodox structure distinguishes bishops from priests and gives bishops oversight of dioceses containing multiple parishes.
It also includes metropolitans, archbishops, and patriarchs.
THAT LATER STRUCTURE IS NOT EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN ACTS 14, ACTS 20, TITUS 1, OR PHILIPPIANS 1.
Does that mean every later administrative arrangement is automatically forbidden?
That conclusion requires an argument of its own.
But we should not describe the later structure as though the apostles had expressly laid out its offices and levels of authority in these passages.
Our question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY IS CLAIMED FOR THE LATER STRUCTURE, AND HOW IS THAT CLAIM SUPPORTED?
5. WHAT ABOUT PRIESTS?
Eastern Orthodoxy has ordained priests.
The New Testament certainly speaks about priests.
But notice how it uses the word.
Hebrews says:
“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”
— Hebrews 4:14, KJV
Peter tells Christians:
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood.”
— 1 Peter 2:5, KJV
Then:
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.”
— 1 Peter 2:9, KJV
The New Testament clearly presents:
CHRIST AS OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST.
And:
GOD’S PEOPLE AS A PRIESTHOOD.
But where does it establish a separate Christian office called priest, distinct from the local elders or overseers, through which the congregation’s sacramental life must ordinarily be administered?
Orthodox Christians understand their ordained priesthood as a ministry within the priesthood of Christ and the life of His church.
They do not believe their priests replace Christ.
The question is narrower:
WHAT NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING SUPPORTS A SEPARATE ORDAINED SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD?
That is what we need to examine.
6. ORTHODOX PRIESTS MAY BE MARRIED
Here is something that may surprise readers familiar with the Roman Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy permits married men to be ordained as priests.
Ordinarily, a man marries before ordination; an unmarried man who has been ordained is not then free to marry.
Orthodox bishops are selected from celibate clergy.
Now compare the New Testament.
Paul says an overseer should be:
“The husband of one wife.”
— 1 Timothy 3:2, KJV
Titus gives the same qualification when describing elders:
“The husband of one wife.”
— Titus 1:6, KJV
Peter was also married. Matthew records Jesus entering Peter’s house and seeing:
“His wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”
— Matthew 8:14, KJV
The New Testament does not establish a rule that every church leader must remain unmarried.
But another question remains.
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REQUIRE BISHOPS TO BE CELIBATE WHILE PERMITTING MARRIED MEN TO SERVE AS PRIESTS?
The Orthodox distinction between the marriage disciplines of priests and bishops is part of its later church order.
We should recognize both the biblical evidence concerning married leaders and the later development of particular rules for different offices.
7. ORTHODOXY ITSELF CONFESSES CHRIST AS THE TRUE PRIEST
We should be fair here.
Orthodox Christians do not believe they can dispense with Jesus because they have priests.
They understand ordained ministers as serving within Christ’s ministry.
Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ.
For example:
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”
— Hebrews 7:24, KJV
And:
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.”
— Hebrews 7:25, KJV
Orthodox Christians affirm the unique saving work of Christ.
Our question is not whether they deny His priesthood.
It is:
HOW DOES THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF ORDAINED PRIESTS RELATE TO THE UNIQUE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS?
We should examine the biblical and theological arguments they offer rather than attribute to them a belief they reject.
8. WHAT ABOUT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?
Eastern Orthodoxy believes its bishops stand in historical and ecclesiastical continuity with the apostles.
But remember the distinction we made earlier.
There can be:
SUCCESSION OF TEACHING.
And:
SUCCESSION OF OFFICE.
Paul told Timothy:
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
— 2 Timothy 2:2, KJV
That passage plainly describes apostolic teaching being passed to faithful people who will teach others.
But does it explicitly say that Timothy must pass on the office and authority of an apostle?
It does not say that in those words.
Orthodox Christians appeal to a wider body of Scripture and early church history in support of apostolic succession through bishops.
Our task is to examine that reasoning.
THE CONTINUATION OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING IS EXPLICIT IN 2 TIMOTHY 2:2.
THE CLAIM THAT A PARTICULAR LATER EPISCOPAL OFFICE CONTINUES APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY REQUIRES FURTHER ARGUMENT.
We should keep those two questions distinct.
9. WHAT ABOUT HOLY TRADITION?
This may be one of the largest questions in our comparison.
Orthodox Christians point out that the New Testament itself speaks positively about tradition.
Paul wrote:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV
And:
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:2, KJV
The Greek word translated ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11:2 can also be translated traditions.
So it would be wrong to argue:
“THE BIBLE CONDEMNS ALL TRADITION.”
It does not.
The real question is:
WHICH TRADITION, AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
10. PAUL’S TRADITION WAS APOSTOLIC TRADITION
Look again at 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Paul told the Christians to hold the traditions:
“Which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV
These were teachings they had received from Paul and his fellow workers.
Some had been communicated orally.
Some had been communicated in writing.
So there is no question that oral apostolic teaching existed.
The difficult question comes later:
HOW CAN WE IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR UNWRITTEN APOSTOLIC TRADITION CENTURIES AFTER THE APOSTLES HAVE DIED?
Orthodox Christians understand Holy Tradition as the apostolic faith preserved in the continuing life of the church.
Other Christians argue that later claims of unwritten apostolic teaching must be tested against the apostolic writings.
We should examine the evidence offered for each particular claim.
The fact that oral apostolic teaching existed does not, by itself, identify every later practice as apostolic.
But the fact that a teaching was communicated orally does not make it unimportant.
THE SOURCE AND CONTENT OF THE TRADITION ARE WHAT MATTER.
11. THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO WARNS ABOUT TRADITION
Jesus said:
“For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.”
— Mark 7:8, KJV
Paul warned:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
— Colossians 2:8, KJV
So Scripture speaks about traditions that should be preserved and traditions that can lead people away from God’s teaching.
The word tradition does not settle the question.
We must determine its source and its relationship to what Christ and His apostles taught.
IS THIS APOSTOLIC TEACHING?
OR IS IT A HUMAN PRACTICE BEING GIVEN APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
That question applies to every Christian tradition.
12. ORTHODOXY RECOGNIZES THAT DISTINCTION TOO
This is worth emphasizing.
Orthodox teaching does not say that everything Christians have ever done automatically becomes Holy Tradition.
Orthodox Christians distinguish what they regard as genuine Holy Tradition from merely local customs and from errors that can appear in the historical life of Christians.
So we share an important question:
HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH GENUINE APOSTOLIC TRADITION FROM LATER HUMAN TRADITION?
Orthodoxy looks to the continuing life of the church, its received faith, worship, councils, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Our method asks us to examine each claim alongside the apostolic text.
That comparison should be careful enough to address the actual Orthodox argument—not a simplified version of it.
13. ORTHODOX BAPTISM IS NORMALLY BY IMMERSION
Here we find something familiar.
Eastern Orthodox baptism is ordinarily performed by immersion, traditionally three times.
Orthodox teaching connects baptism with Paul’s language in Romans 6.
Paul wrote:
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
— Romans 6:3, KJV
Then:
“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.”
— Romans 6:4, KJV
The imagery is striking.
DEATH.
BURIAL.
RESURRECTION.
Immersion visibly expresses that imagery.
But we should distinguish the symbolism from the complete argument about the required manner of baptism.
Romans 6 explains believers’ participation in Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism.
To establish a particular mode as required, we should examine the broader New Testament evidence as well.
Orthodox practice gives us a clear opportunity to make that comparison.
14. BUT WHY THREE IMMERSIONS?
Orthodox baptism is traditionally performed with three immersions.
The person is baptized in connection with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus commanded:
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
— Matthew 28:19, KJV
The Trinitarian language is certainly biblical.
But the verse does not explicitly instruct Christians to immerse a person once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit.
The threefold form is ancient.
That does not automatically make it wrong.
But neither does its age establish that Jesus commanded three separate immersions.
WHAT DOES THE COMMAND REQUIRE?
AND WHAT IS A LATER WAY OF CARRYING OUT THE COMMAND?
Those are different questions.
15. ORTHODOXY TAKES BAPTISM SERIOUSLY
There is another point we should not miss.
Eastern Orthodoxy does not treat baptism merely as an outward announcement that salvation has already occurred.
Now compare the New Testament.
Peter said:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
— Acts 2:38, KJV
Ananias told Saul:
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
— Acts 22:16, KJV
Paul connects baptism with Christ’s death and resurrection in Romans 6:3–4.
These passages give baptism serious significance.
Orthodox Christians also baptize infants and ordinarily administer chrismation after baptism.
Those practices raise additional questions concerning the recipients of baptism, repentance, faith, and the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We should acknowledge the common ground before examining those differences.
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT WHO IS TO BE BAPTIZED, WHY THEY ARE BAPTIZED, AND WHAT FOLLOWS BAPTISM?
That is the larger study.
16. WHAT ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER?
Orthodoxy places the Eucharist at the center of worship.
The New Testament also gives the Lord’s Supper great importance.
Jesus said:
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
— Matthew 26:26, KJV
And:
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
— Matthew 26:28, KJV
Paul wrote:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
— 1 Corinthians 10:16, KJV
And Luke tells us that the first Christians continued:
“In the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
— Acts 2:42, KJV
These passages deserve careful study.
But questions remain.
HOW DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIBE CHRISTIANS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?
WHAT DOES IT TEACH ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER AS A SACRIFICE OR MEMORIAL?
DOES IT REQUIRE A SEPARATE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD TO ADMINISTER IT?
DOES PARTICIPATION REQUIRE THE LATER ORTHODOX EPISCOPAL STRUCTURE?
Those questions cannot be settled simply by observing that the Eucharist has an important place in Orthodox worship.
We must examine the relevant passages and the arguments made from them.
17. ORTHODOX WORSHIP IS TRADITIONALLY A CAPPELLA
Here is another practice that may surprise readers.
Eastern Orthodox worship has historically relied primarily on vocal music without instrumental accompaniment.
In other words:
A CAPPELLA.
There are exceptions in some places today, but unaccompanied singing remains the historic Orthodox pattern.
Much Orthodox music is led by cantors or choirs.
Congregational participation varies.
So we should not assume that every person in every Orthodox congregation sings every part of the service.
Now compare the New Testament.
Paul wrote:
“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”
— Ephesians 5:19, KJV
And:
“Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”
— Colossians 3:16, KJV
These passages expressly describe singing.
Orthodox worship has preserved a longstanding practice of unaccompanied vocal music.
But we should distinguish two questions:
DOES A PRACTICE CORRESPOND TO SOMETHING THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMANDS OR DESCRIBES?
And:
DOES THAT CORRESPONDENCE, BY ITSELF, SETTLE EVERY QUESTION ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE PRACTICES?
The passages establish the place of singing in Christian worship.
Arguments about whether instrumental accompaniment is authorized require further examination.
We should not claim that a historical practice alone settles that debate.
18. WHAT ABOUT ICONS?
Now we reach a more difficult question.
Orthodox Christians do not claim that an icon is a god.
They distinguish between:
WORSHIP, WHICH BELONGS TO GOD ALONE,
and:
VENERATION, OR HONOR SHOWN TOWARD AN ICON AND THE PERSON REPRESENTED BY IT.
We should represent that distinction fairly.
Orthodox Christians also connect the use of icons with the incarnation: the Son of God truly became human and could be seen.
Their argument is not simply that images are attractive or useful decorations.
It is a theological argument about Christ and the church’s worship.
Our question is:
WHAT SCRIPTURAL BASIS IS OFFERED FOR VENERATING SACRED IMAGES?
Search the New Testament.
We find Christians praying, singing, teaching, giving, baptizing, breaking bread, and reading Scripture.
Where do we find apostolic churches venerating images of Christ, Mary, the apostles, or departed Christians?
And how do Orthodox Christians connect their practice to biblical teaching about Christ’s incarnation and the honor shown to those represented?
We need to examine both the biblical evidence and the reasoning offered from it.
19. THE DATE OF THE ICON CONTROVERSY MATTERS
Icons eventually became the subject of an enormous controversy.
Some Christians defended their veneration.
Others opposed or destroyed them.
The Second Council of Nicaea, meeting in A.D. 787 and recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, defended the veneration of icons while distinguishing that veneration from worship owed to God.
Think about the date:
A.D. 787.
That does not automatically make the practice wrong.
A belief or practice is not necessarily false merely because Christians formally defined or defended it centuries later.
But neither does a council’s decision in 787, by itself, establish that the apostles taught the practice in the first century.
We must examine the evidence offered for continuity.
ANCIENT PRACTICE AND APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY ARE RELATED QUESTIONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL QUESTIONS.
20. WHAT ABOUT MARY?
The New Testament honors Mary.
Gabriel told her:
“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”
— Luke 1:30, KJV
Elizabeth said:
“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
— Luke 1:42, KJV
Mary herself said:
“For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
— Luke 1:48, KJV
We should not react against later Marian devotion by refusing to give Mary the honor Scripture gives her.
She was blessed.
She was the mother of Jesus.
The One she bore was truly the Son of God.
Orthodox Christians honor her as Theotokos, or God-bearer, because they understand the title as affirming who Jesus Christ is.
But further questions remain.
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCT CHRISTIANS TO ADDRESS MARY IN PRAYER?
DOES IT TEACH THEM TO SEEK HER INTERCESSION?
WHAT SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS ARE OFFERED FOR HER CONTINUING ROLE IN THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH?
Those questions should be examined without either denying the honor Scripture gives Mary or assuming that every later practice follows directly from that honor.
21. WHAT ABOUT THE SAINTS?
The New Testament repeatedly speaks of saints.
Notice who they are.
Paul addressed the Christians in Rome as:
“Called to be saints.”
— Romans 1:7, KJV
He wrote to the Christians at Ephesus:
“To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.”
— Ephesians 1:1, KJV
In these passages, saints are God’s holy people.
The word is not limited to a special class of Christians recognized after death.
Orthodox Christians also use saints in this broad sense, while giving particular honor to Christians whose lives are remembered as examples of holiness.
They understand those who have died in Christ as alive in Him and ask for their prayers.
Now we must ask:
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE DIED?
DOES IT INSTRUCT LIVING CHRISTIANS TO ADDRESS DEPARTED SAINTS AND ASK FOR THEIR PRAYERS?
WHAT SCRIPTURAL REASONING IS OFFERED TO SUPPORT THAT PRACTICE?
We should distinguish what a passage explicitly says from conclusions drawn by bringing several passages together.
22. WHAT ABOUT COUNCILS?
Orthodoxy places great importance on the ecumenical councils it receives.
Acts 15 certainly shows apostles and elders meeting to address a serious controversy.
But notice an important difference.
Acts 15 included:
APOSTLES.
Men personally commissioned by Christ were still alive.
The resulting letter said:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
— Acts 15:28, KJV
Orthodox Christians understand later councils as expressions of the church’s continuing responsibility to preserve apostolic teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Other Christians question whether later gatherings of bishops possess authority comparable to that of the apostles.
Our question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY DID CHRIST GIVE THE APOSTLES?
WHAT AUTHORITY DID THEY GIVE OTHER CHURCH LEADERS?
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT HOW THE CHURCH SHOULD RESOLVE DOCTRINAL DISPUTES AFTER THE APOSTLES’ LIFETIMES?
The fact that Acts 15 describes a council does not, by itself, define the authority of every later council.
That requires further argument.
23. EASTERN ORTHODOXY SHOULD MAKE US THINK
If we are fair, studying Eastern Orthodoxy should make us examine several familiar subjects again.
It takes church history seriously.
It gives baptism an important place in Christian life.
It ordinarily baptizes by immersion.
It places the Lord’s Supper at the center of worship.
It has preserved a strong tradition of a cappella singing.
It permits married men to serve as priests.
It emphasizes continuity with earlier Christianity.
And it resists changing its worship merely because the surrounding culture changes.
Those features deserve to be understood.
But none of them, by itself, settles our central question:
WHAT IS THE APOSTOLIC BASIS FOR EACH TEACHING AND PRACTICE?
A practice may be ancient, meaningful, and widely received.
That gives us a reason to study its history.
It does not eliminate the need to examine its claimed biblical authority.
24. AND THAT SAME TEST MUST COME HOME TO US
This is important.
Someone from a Protestant or Restoration background could finish this page saying:
“LOOK AT ALL THOSE ORTHODOX TRADITIONS.”
But if we ask Orthodoxy:
“WHERE IS THAT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?”
Then we must ask ourselves exactly the same question.
Where did our church organization come from?
Our worship practices?
Our assumptions about preachers?
Our methods?
Our traditions?
Our vocabulary?
Our interpretations?
And even when we discover that one of our practices agrees with something very ancient, that does not settle the question either.
Our practice is not established as apostolic simply because the Orthodox do it.
And it is not established as apostolic simply because we have always done it.
TEXT B4 TRADITION APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.
Including us.
25. SO WHAT HAVE WE FOUND?
Put Eastern Orthodoxy beside the New Testament, and we find a number of subjects and practices with clear biblical connections:
CHRIST AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
BISHOPS OR OVERSEERS.
ELDERS.
DEACONS.
MARRIED CHURCH LEADERS.
BAPTISM.
THE LORD’S SUPPER.
SINGING.
APOSTOLIC TEACHING.
CHRISTIAN UNITY.
THE PRIESTHOOD OF GOD’S PEOPLE.
But we also encounter a developed structure and practices that raise further questions:
A BISHOP OVER MULTIPLE CONGREGATIONS.
PRIESTS AS A SEPARATE SACRAMENTAL ORDER.
THE CELIBACY REQUIRED OF BISHOPS.
METROPOLITANS AND PATRIARCHS.
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION THROUGH EPISCOPAL OFFICE.
THREEFOLD IMMERSION AS A NORMATIVE BAPTISMAL FORM.
THE LARGER CONCEPT OF HOLY TRADITION.
VENERATION OF ICONS.
INVOCATION OF DEPARTED SAINTS.
LATER MARIAN DEVOTION.
THE AUTHORITY ASSIGNED TO LATER ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.
Some practices are defended by direct appeal to biblical passages.
Others are defended through inference, early Christian history, or theological reasoning.
Our task is to examine each argument.
WHAT DOES THE APOSTOLIC TEXT STATE?
WHAT IS INFERRED FROM IT?
WHAT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IS OFFERED?
AND DOES THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AUTHORITY BEING CLAIMED?
26. DON’T START WITH THE VERDICT
That may be the most important lesson on this page.
Don’t begin by deciding:
“ORTHODOXY IS RIGHT.”
Don’t begin by deciding:
“ORTHODOXY IS WRONG.”
And don’t begin with:
“MY CHURCH DOES IT DIFFERENTLY.”
That proves nothing.
Read the text.
Study the context.
Understand what the other person actually believes.
Examine the evidence.
Determine what the apostles taught.
Then put the later practice beside it.
READ FIRST.
CONCLUDE LATER.
That is our method.
And now we are ready to leave Constantinople and travel west again.
Western Christianity continued developing for centuries after East and West became separated.
Eventually, a German monk challenged teachings, practices, and authority within the Western church.
His name was:
MARTIN LUTHER.
But Luther did not suddenly appear in 1517.
To understand why the Reformation happened, we first need to understand the Western church he inherited.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE WEST BEFORE LUTHER?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE WEST BEFORE LUTHER?
EASTERN ORTHODOXY BESIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT
HOW MUCH IS APOSTOLIC — AND HOW MUCH DEVELOPED LATER?
On our last page, we tried to let Eastern Orthodoxy speak for itself.
That matters. It would be unfair to criticize Orthodox Christians for something they do not actually believe.
Now we take the next step.
We put Eastern Orthodox teaching and practice beside the New Testament.
Not beside Protestantism.
Not beside Roman Catholicism.
Not beside Churches of Christ.
BESIDE THE TEXT.
Some Orthodox practices have clear connections with what we read in the New Testament.
Others raise questions about how later Christians understood and developed apostolic teaching.
We should acknowledge both.
And we should apply the same questions to ourselves.
1. CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH
Start with something important on which Christians can agree.
Paul wrote:
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”
— Ephesians 5:23, KJV
And:
“And he is the head of the body, the church.”
— Colossians 1:18, KJV
Eastern Orthodoxy does not teach that the Ecumenical Patriarch replaces Christ as Head of the church.
The Ecumenical Patriarch holds a special position among Orthodox bishops, but he is not understood to possess the same universal governing authority claimed by the pope.
Orthodox Christians confess Christ as the Head of His church.
That is where our comparison begins.
But confessing Christ as Head does not, by itself, settle how He intended His church to be organized.
For that, we need to examine the apostolic writings.
2. WHAT ABOUT BISHOPS?
Eastern Orthodoxy has bishops.
The New Testament has bishops.
Does that settle the question?
No.
We need to ask what the word meant when the apostles used it.
Paul summoned the:
“elders of the church.”
— Acts 20:17, KJV
Then he told these same men:
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”
— Acts 20:28, KJV
The Greek word translated overseer is the word from which the English word bishop developed.
Notice what happened.
Paul called for the elders of the church at Ephesus.
He then described those same men as overseers.
Now compare Titus.
Paul told Titus:
“Ordain elders in every city.”
— Titus 1:5, KJV
Then, while describing the qualifications of those men, he said:
“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.”
— Titus 1:7, KJV
In these passages, elder and overseer describe the same local leadership.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT PRESENT ELDER AND BISHOP AS TWO DIFFERENT RANKS IN ACTS 20 OR TITUS 1.
That distinction becomes important when we examine the later structure of Eastern Orthodoxy.
3. WHAT ABOUT SHEPHERDS OR PASTORS?
Acts 20 gives us another description.
Paul told the elders, whom he had just called overseers:
“To feed the church of God.”
— Acts 20:28, KJV
The word translated feed carries the idea of shepherding.
Peter used similar language:
“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder.”
— 1 Peter 5:1, KJV
Then he instructed them:
“Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof.”
— 1 Peter 5:2, KJV
So we encounter three descriptions:
ELDER.
OVERSEER OR BISHOP.
SHEPHERD OR PASTOR.
In these passages, the descriptions belong to the same group of local church leaders.
Later church history developed a distinction between a bishop and the presbyters serving under him.
We examined that development in Section 1.
Now we must ask how the later Orthodox structure relates to the organization described in these passages.
4. ORTHODOX BISHOPS AND NEW TESTAMENT OVERSEERS
An Eastern Orthodox bishop ordinarily oversees a diocese containing numerous congregations.
Priests normally serve individual parishes under the bishop.
But in the New Testament, we repeatedly find elders or overseers associated with local churches.
Paul and Barnabas:
“Ordained them elders in every church.”
— Acts 14:23, KJV
Paul addressed the Christians at Philippi:
“With the bishops and deacons.”
— Philippians 1:1, KJV
Notice the distinction.
The New Testament describes elders or overseers serving churches.
The later Orthodox structure distinguishes bishops from priests and gives bishops oversight of dioceses containing multiple parishes.
It also includes metropolitans, archbishops, and patriarchs.
THAT LATER STRUCTURE IS NOT EXPLICITLY DESCRIBED IN ACTS 14, ACTS 20, TITUS 1, OR PHILIPPIANS 1.
Does that mean every later administrative arrangement is automatically forbidden?
That conclusion requires an argument of its own.
But we should not describe the later structure as though the apostles had expressly laid out its offices and levels of authority in these passages.
Our question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY IS CLAIMED FOR THE LATER STRUCTURE, AND HOW IS THAT CLAIM SUPPORTED?
5. WHAT ABOUT PRIESTS?
Eastern Orthodoxy has ordained priests.
The New Testament certainly speaks about priests.
But notice how it uses the word.
Hebrews says:
“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”
— Hebrews 4:14, KJV
Peter tells Christians:
“Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood.”
— 1 Peter 2:5, KJV
Then:
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.”
— 1 Peter 2:9, KJV
The New Testament clearly presents:
CHRIST AS OUR GREAT HIGH PRIEST.
And:
GOD’S PEOPLE AS A PRIESTHOOD.
But where does it establish a separate Christian office called priest, distinct from the local elders or overseers, through which the congregation’s sacramental life must ordinarily be administered?
Orthodox Christians understand their ordained priesthood as a ministry within the priesthood of Christ and the life of His church.
They do not believe their priests replace Christ.
The question is narrower:
WHAT NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING SUPPORTS A SEPARATE ORDAINED SACRAMENTAL PRIESTHOOD?
That is what we need to examine.
6. ORTHODOX PRIESTS MAY BE MARRIED
Here is something that may surprise readers familiar with the Roman Catholic discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy permits married men to be ordained as priests.
Ordinarily, a man marries before ordination; an unmarried man who has been ordained is not then free to marry.
Orthodox bishops are selected from celibate clergy.
Now compare the New Testament.
Paul says an overseer should be:
“The husband of one wife.”
— 1 Timothy 3:2, KJV
Titus gives the same qualification when describing elders:
“The husband of one wife.”
— Titus 1:6, KJV
Peter was also married. Matthew records Jesus entering Peter’s house and seeing:
“His wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”
— Matthew 8:14, KJV
The New Testament does not establish a rule that every church leader must remain unmarried.
But another question remains.
WHERE DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT REQUIRE BISHOPS TO BE CELIBATE WHILE PERMITTING MARRIED MEN TO SERVE AS PRIESTS?
The Orthodox distinction between the marriage disciplines of priests and bishops is part of its later church order.
We should recognize both the biblical evidence concerning married leaders and the later development of particular rules for different offices.
7. ORTHODOXY ITSELF CONFESSES CHRIST AS THE TRUE PRIEST
We should be fair here.
Orthodox Christians do not believe they can dispense with Jesus because they have priests.
They understand ordained ministers as serving within Christ’s ministry.
Hebrews repeatedly emphasizes the unique priesthood of Jesus Christ.
For example:
“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.”
— Hebrews 7:24, KJV
And:
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.”
— Hebrews 7:25, KJV
Orthodox Christians affirm the unique saving work of Christ.
Our question is not whether they deny His priesthood.
It is:
HOW DOES THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF ORDAINED PRIESTS RELATE TO THE UNIQUE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST AND THE PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS?
We should examine the biblical and theological arguments they offer rather than attribute to them a belief they reject.
8. WHAT ABOUT APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?
Eastern Orthodoxy believes its bishops stand in historical and ecclesiastical continuity with the apostles.
But remember the distinction we made earlier.
There can be:
SUCCESSION OF TEACHING.
And:
SUCCESSION OF OFFICE.
Paul told Timothy:
“And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
— 2 Timothy 2:2, KJV
That passage plainly describes apostolic teaching being passed to faithful people who will teach others.
But does it explicitly say that Timothy must pass on the office and authority of an apostle?
It does not say that in those words.
Orthodox Christians appeal to a wider body of Scripture and early church history in support of apostolic succession through bishops.
Our task is to examine that reasoning.
THE CONTINUATION OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING IS EXPLICIT IN 2 TIMOTHY 2:2.
THE CLAIM THAT A PARTICULAR LATER EPISCOPAL OFFICE CONTINUES APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY REQUIRES FURTHER ARGUMENT.
We should keep those two questions distinct.
9. WHAT ABOUT HOLY TRADITION?
This may be one of the largest questions in our comparison.
Orthodox Christians point out that the New Testament itself speaks positively about tradition.
Paul wrote:
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV
And:
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”
— 1 Corinthians 11:2, KJV
The Greek word translated ordinances in 1 Corinthians 11:2 can also be translated traditions.
So it would be wrong to argue:
“THE BIBLE CONDEMNS ALL TRADITION.”
It does not.
The real question is:
WHICH TRADITION, AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
10. PAUL’S TRADITION WAS APOSTOLIC TRADITION
Look again at 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Paul told the Christians to hold the traditions:
“Which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
— 2 Thessalonians 2:15, KJV
These were teachings they had received from Paul and his fellow workers.
Some had been communicated orally.
Some had been communicated in writing.
So there is no question that oral apostolic teaching existed.
The difficult question comes later:
HOW CAN WE IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR UNWRITTEN APOSTOLIC TRADITION CENTURIES AFTER THE APOSTLES HAVE DIED?
Orthodox Christians understand Holy Tradition as the apostolic faith preserved in the continuing life of the church.
Other Christians argue that later claims of unwritten apostolic teaching must be tested against the apostolic writings.
We should examine the evidence offered for each particular claim.
The fact that oral apostolic teaching existed does not, by itself, identify every later practice as apostolic.
But the fact that a teaching was communicated orally does not make it unimportant.
THE SOURCE AND CONTENT OF THE TRADITION ARE WHAT MATTER.
11. THE NEW TESTAMENT ALSO WARNS ABOUT TRADITION
Jesus said:
“For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.”
— Mark 7:8, KJV
Paul warned:
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
— Colossians 2:8, KJV
So Scripture speaks about traditions that should be preserved and traditions that can lead people away from God’s teaching.
The word tradition does not settle the question.
We must determine its source and its relationship to what Christ and His apostles taught.
IS THIS APOSTOLIC TEACHING?
OR IS IT A HUMAN PRACTICE BEING GIVEN APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
That question applies to every Christian tradition.
12. ORTHODOXY RECOGNIZES THAT DISTINCTION TOO
This is worth emphasizing.
Orthodox teaching does not say that everything Christians have ever done automatically becomes Holy Tradition.
Orthodox Christians distinguish what they regard as genuine Holy Tradition from merely local customs and from errors that can appear in the historical life of Christians.
So we share an important question:
HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH GENUINE APOSTOLIC TRADITION FROM LATER HUMAN TRADITION?
Orthodoxy looks to the continuing life of the church, its received faith, worship, councils, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Our method asks us to examine each claim alongside the apostolic text.
That comparison should be careful enough to address the actual Orthodox argument—not a simplified version of it.
13. ORTHODOX BAPTISM IS NORMALLY BY IMMERSION
Here we find something familiar.
Eastern Orthodox baptism is ordinarily performed by immersion, traditionally three times.
Orthodox teaching connects baptism with Paul’s language in Romans 6.
Paul wrote:
“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”
— Romans 6:3, KJV
Then:
“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.”
— Romans 6:4, KJV
The imagery is striking.
DEATH.
BURIAL.
RESURRECTION.
Immersion visibly expresses that imagery.
But we should distinguish the symbolism from the complete argument about the required manner of baptism.
Romans 6 explains believers’ participation in Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism.
To establish a particular mode as required, we should examine the broader New Testament evidence as well.
Orthodox practice gives us a clear opportunity to make that comparison.
14. BUT WHY THREE IMMERSIONS?
Orthodox baptism is traditionally performed with three immersions.
The person is baptized in connection with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus commanded:
“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
— Matthew 28:19, KJV
The Trinitarian language is certainly biblical.
But the verse does not explicitly instruct Christians to immerse a person once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit.
The threefold form is ancient.
That does not automatically make it wrong.
But neither does its age establish that Jesus commanded three separate immersions.
WHAT DOES THE COMMAND REQUIRE?
AND WHAT IS A LATER WAY OF CARRYING OUT THE COMMAND?
Those are different questions.
15. ORTHODOXY TAKES BAPTISM SERIOUSLY
There is another point we should not miss.
Eastern Orthodoxy does not treat baptism merely as an outward announcement that salvation has already occurred.
Now compare the New Testament.
Peter said:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
— Acts 2:38, KJV
Ananias told Saul:
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
— Acts 22:16, KJV
Paul connects baptism with Christ’s death and resurrection in Romans 6:3–4.
These passages give baptism serious significance.
Orthodox Christians also baptize infants and ordinarily administer chrismation after baptism.
Those practices raise additional questions concerning the recipients of baptism, repentance, faith, and the relationship between baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We should acknowledge the common ground before examining those differences.
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT WHO IS TO BE BAPTIZED, WHY THEY ARE BAPTIZED, AND WHAT FOLLOWS BAPTISM?
That is the larger study.
16. WHAT ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER?
Orthodoxy places the Eucharist at the center of worship.
The New Testament also gives the Lord’s Supper great importance.
Jesus said:
“Take, eat; this is my body.”
— Matthew 26:26, KJV
And:
“For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
— Matthew 26:28, KJV
Paul wrote:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”
— 1 Corinthians 10:16, KJV
And Luke tells us that the first Christians continued:
“In the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
— Acts 2:42, KJV
These passages deserve careful study.
But questions remain.
HOW DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT DESCRIBE CHRISTIANS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST?
WHAT DOES IT TEACH ABOUT THE LORD’S SUPPER AS A SACRIFICE OR MEMORIAL?
DOES IT REQUIRE A SEPARATE ORDAINED PRIESTHOOD TO ADMINISTER IT?
DOES PARTICIPATION REQUIRE THE LATER ORTHODOX EPISCOPAL STRUCTURE?
Those questions cannot be settled simply by observing that the Eucharist has an important place in Orthodox worship.
We must examine the relevant passages and the arguments made from them.
17. ORTHODOX WORSHIP IS TRADITIONALLY A CAPPELLA
Here is another practice that may surprise readers.
Eastern Orthodox worship has historically relied primarily on vocal music without instrumental accompaniment.
In other words:
A CAPPELLA.
There are exceptions in some places today, but unaccompanied singing remains the historic Orthodox pattern.
Much Orthodox music is led by cantors or choirs.
Congregational participation varies.
So we should not assume that every person in every Orthodox congregation sings every part of the service.
Now compare the New Testament.
Paul wrote:
“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”
— Ephesians 5:19, KJV
And:
“Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”
— Colossians 3:16, KJV
These passages expressly describe singing.
Orthodox worship has preserved a longstanding practice of unaccompanied vocal music.
But we should distinguish two questions:
DOES A PRACTICE CORRESPOND TO SOMETHING THE NEW TESTAMENT COMMANDS OR DESCRIBES?
And:
DOES THAT CORRESPONDENCE, BY ITSELF, SETTLE EVERY QUESTION ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE PRACTICES?
The passages establish the place of singing in Christian worship.
Arguments about whether instrumental accompaniment is authorized require further examination.
We should not claim that a historical practice alone settles that debate.
18. WHAT ABOUT ICONS?
Now we reach a more difficult question.
Orthodox Christians do not claim that an icon is a god.
They distinguish between:
WORSHIP, WHICH BELONGS TO GOD ALONE,
and:
VENERATION, OR HONOR SHOWN TOWARD AN ICON AND THE PERSON REPRESENTED BY IT.
We should represent that distinction fairly.
Orthodox Christians also connect the use of icons with the incarnation: the Son of God truly became human and could be seen.
Their argument is not simply that images are attractive or useful decorations.
It is a theological argument about Christ and the church’s worship.
Our question is:
WHAT SCRIPTURAL BASIS IS OFFERED FOR VENERATING SACRED IMAGES?
Search the New Testament.
We find Christians praying, singing, teaching, giving, baptizing, breaking bread, and reading Scripture.
Where do we find apostolic churches venerating images of Christ, Mary, the apostles, or departed Christians?
And how do Orthodox Christians connect their practice to biblical teaching about Christ’s incarnation and the honor shown to those represented?
We need to examine both the biblical evidence and the reasoning offered from it.
19. THE DATE OF THE ICON CONTROVERSY MATTERS
Icons eventually became the subject of an enormous controversy.
Some Christians defended their veneration.
Others opposed or destroyed them.
The Second Council of Nicaea, meeting in A.D. 787 and recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy as the Seventh Ecumenical Council, defended the veneration of icons while distinguishing that veneration from worship owed to God.
Think about the date:
A.D. 787.
That does not automatically make the practice wrong.
A belief or practice is not necessarily false merely because Christians formally defined or defended it centuries later.
But neither does a council’s decision in 787, by itself, establish that the apostles taught the practice in the first century.
We must examine the evidence offered for continuity.
ANCIENT PRACTICE AND APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY ARE RELATED QUESTIONS, BUT THEY ARE NOT IDENTICAL QUESTIONS.
20. WHAT ABOUT MARY?
The New Testament honors Mary.
Gabriel told her:
“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”
— Luke 1:30, KJV
Elizabeth said:
“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
— Luke 1:42, KJV
Mary herself said:
“For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.”
— Luke 1:48, KJV
We should not react against later Marian devotion by refusing to give Mary the honor Scripture gives her.
She was blessed.
She was the mother of Jesus.
The One she bore was truly the Son of God.
Orthodox Christians honor her as Theotokos, or God-bearer, because they understand the title as affirming who Jesus Christ is.
But further questions remain.
DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT INSTRUCT CHRISTIANS TO ADDRESS MARY IN PRAYER?
DOES IT TEACH THEM TO SEEK HER INTERCESSION?
WHAT SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS ARE OFFERED FOR HER CONTINUING ROLE IN THE PRAYERS OF THE CHURCH?
Those questions should be examined without either denying the honor Scripture gives Mary or assuming that every later practice follows directly from that honor.
21. WHAT ABOUT THE SAINTS?
The New Testament repeatedly speaks of saints.
Notice who they are.
Paul addressed the Christians in Rome as:
“Called to be saints.”
— Romans 1:7, KJV
He wrote to the Christians at Ephesus:
“To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.”
— Ephesians 1:1, KJV
In these passages, saints are God’s holy people.
The word is not limited to a special class of Christians recognized after death.
Orthodox Christians also use saints in this broad sense, while giving particular honor to Christians whose lives are remembered as examples of holiness.
They understand those who have died in Christ as alive in Him and ask for their prayers.
Now we must ask:
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE DIED?
DOES IT INSTRUCT LIVING CHRISTIANS TO ADDRESS DEPARTED SAINTS AND ASK FOR THEIR PRAYERS?
WHAT SCRIPTURAL REASONING IS OFFERED TO SUPPORT THAT PRACTICE?
We should distinguish what a passage explicitly says from conclusions drawn by bringing several passages together.
22. WHAT ABOUT COUNCILS?
Orthodoxy places great importance on the ecumenical councils it receives.
Acts 15 certainly shows apostles and elders meeting to address a serious controversy.
But notice an important difference.
Acts 15 included:
APOSTLES.
Men personally commissioned by Christ were still alive.
The resulting letter said:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.”
— Acts 15:28, KJV
Orthodox Christians understand later councils as expressions of the church’s continuing responsibility to preserve apostolic teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Other Christians question whether later gatherings of bishops possess authority comparable to that of the apostles.
Our question is:
WHAT AUTHORITY DID CHRIST GIVE THE APOSTLES?
WHAT AUTHORITY DID THEY GIVE OTHER CHURCH LEADERS?
WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH ABOUT HOW THE CHURCH SHOULD RESOLVE DOCTRINAL DISPUTES AFTER THE APOSTLES’ LIFETIMES?
The fact that Acts 15 describes a council does not, by itself, define the authority of every later council.
That requires further argument.
23. EASTERN ORTHODOXY SHOULD MAKE US THINK
If we are fair, studying Eastern Orthodoxy should make us examine several familiar subjects again.
It takes church history seriously.
It gives baptism an important place in Christian life.
It ordinarily baptizes by immersion.
It places the Lord’s Supper at the center of worship.
It has preserved a strong tradition of a cappella singing.
It permits married men to serve as priests.
It emphasizes continuity with earlier Christianity.
And it resists changing its worship merely because the surrounding culture changes.
Those features deserve to be understood.
But none of them, by itself, settles our central question:
WHAT IS THE APOSTOLIC BASIS FOR EACH TEACHING AND PRACTICE?
A practice may be ancient, meaningful, and widely received.
That gives us a reason to study its history.
It does not eliminate the need to examine its claimed biblical authority.
24. AND THAT SAME TEST MUST COME HOME TO US
This is important.
Someone from a Protestant or Restoration background could finish this page saying:
“LOOK AT ALL THOSE ORTHODOX TRADITIONS.”
But if we ask Orthodoxy:
“WHERE IS THAT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?”
Then we must ask ourselves exactly the same question.
Where did our church organization come from?
Our worship practices?
Our assumptions about preachers?
Our methods?
Our traditions?
Our vocabulary?
Our interpretations?
And even when we discover that one of our practices agrees with something very ancient, that does not settle the question either.
Our practice is not established as apostolic simply because the Orthodox do it.
And it is not established as apostolic simply because we have always done it.
TEXT B4 TRADITION APPLIES TO EVERYBODY.
Including us.
25. SO WHAT HAVE WE FOUND?
Put Eastern Orthodoxy beside the New Testament, and we find a number of subjects and practices with clear biblical connections:
CHRIST AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
BISHOPS OR OVERSEERS.
ELDERS.
DEACONS.
MARRIED CHURCH LEADERS.
BAPTISM.
THE LORD’S SUPPER.
SINGING.
APOSTOLIC TEACHING.
CHRISTIAN UNITY.
THE PRIESTHOOD OF GOD’S PEOPLE.
But we also encounter a developed structure and practices that raise further questions:
A BISHOP OVER MULTIPLE CONGREGATIONS.
PRIESTS AS A SEPARATE SACRAMENTAL ORDER.
THE CELIBACY REQUIRED OF BISHOPS.
METROPOLITANS AND PATRIARCHS.
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION THROUGH EPISCOPAL OFFICE.
THREEFOLD IMMERSION AS A NORMATIVE BAPTISMAL FORM.
THE LARGER CONCEPT OF HOLY TRADITION.
VENERATION OF ICONS.
INVOCATION OF DEPARTED SAINTS.
LATER MARIAN DEVOTION.
THE AUTHORITY ASSIGNED TO LATER ECUMENICAL COUNCILS.
Some practices are defended by direct appeal to biblical passages.
Others are defended through inference, early Christian history, or theological reasoning.
Our task is to examine each argument.
WHAT DOES THE APOSTOLIC TEXT STATE?
WHAT IS INFERRED FROM IT?
WHAT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IS OFFERED?
AND DOES THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE AUTHORITY BEING CLAIMED?
26. DON’T START WITH THE VERDICT
That may be the most important lesson on this page.
Don’t begin by deciding:
“ORTHODOXY IS RIGHT.”
Don’t begin by deciding:
“ORTHODOXY IS WRONG.”
And don’t begin with:
“MY CHURCH DOES IT DIFFERENTLY.”
That proves nothing.
Read the text.
Study the context.
Understand what the other person actually believes.
Examine the evidence.
Determine what the apostles taught.
Then put the later practice beside it.
READ FIRST.
CONCLUDE LATER.
That is our method.
And now we are ready to leave Constantinople and travel west again.
Western Christianity continued developing for centuries after East and West became separated.
Eventually, a German monk challenged teachings, practices, and authority within the Western church.
His name was:
MARTIN LUTHER.
But Luther did not suddenly appear in 1517.
To understand why the Reformation happened, we first need to understand the Western church he inherited.
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE WEST BEFORE LUTHER?
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?
NEXT STUDY: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE WEST BEFORE LUTHER?